A/HRC/31/57/Add.3 Commissioner overly burdensome and overlap the role of the Prosecutor General, which in turn may lead to jurisdictional conflict. In addition, he is concerned that the Commissioner could lose jurisdiction over pertinent cases owing simply to the fact that they are qualified as offence other than torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Special Rapporteur was informed about cases in which police officers or prison guards suspected of ill-treatment had had their case instituted for “exceeding official power” – punishable by lenient sentences – rather than for “torture or ill-treatment”, which is punishable by heavy sanctions and penalties. The Commissioner ought to have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate cases with prima facie evidence that an individual has been tortured or illtreated, even if initially the investigative authorities have charged a public official or any other person not for torture or ill-treatment but for exceeding or abusing their official capacity or similar lesser offences. The second issue is whether the mechanism will focus on the above-mentioned backlog of cases of torture and ill-treatment or on current and future cases, or on a combination of both. The Special Rapporteur has another similar concern. Dealing with this backlog remains crucial, including also the offer of meaningful remedy to every victim of torture; however, if the proposed new mechanism is to have an actual preventive effect, it will be important to ensure that this does not come at the expense of the capacity to respond swiftly to new cases. 68. In the light of the above, the Special Rapporteur notes the decision of the InterAgency Council, made at its meeting of 18 May 2015, to continue its work on the possible modalities of the independent investigative mechanism, and welcomes its declared intention of soliciting feedback and recommendations from all stakeholders. In addition, he welcomes the decision made by the Council on 16 June 2014 to create three working groups, mandated to focus on (a) strengthening the mechanism under the Office of the Public Defender; (b) establishing a mechanism to ensure a thorough, transparent, independent investigation into any allegation of the use of torture and ill-treatment; and (c) improving rights and conditions of inmates in the penitentiary system and other closed facilities. C. Conditions of detention 69. Responsibility for the penitentiary system, including for pretrial detention facilities, rests with the Ministry of Corrections, while police temporary detention isolators are the responsibility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. 70. Visits to remand, semi-open and closed prisons allowed the Special Rapporteur to note that, overall, the size of cells and fittings (windows, ventilation, bathrooms and showers) is adequate. The same applies to cells used for disciplinary isolation and cells formerly known as “de-escalation” or “anti-vandalism” cells, now referred to as “safe cells” (used for closer surveillance of inmates considered at risk of harm to themselves or to others). 71. With regard to access to lawyers, the Special Rapporteur learned that, overall, inmates avail themselves of lawyers and have no complaints about access. Visits by lawyers are granted at any time during work days and working hours and, as far as the Special Rapporteur was able to observe, are held in confidential settings. 72. According to article 54 of the Imprisonment Code, video surveillance must be based on justified suspicion, to protect security and other interests of prisoners, including the prevention of suicide and self-harm violence, destruction of property and other violations of the law. While recognizing the need to use electronic systems for the purposes of surveillance and the prevention of violence, including by inmates and guards, the Special Rapporteur noted with concern a highly inadequate use, in practice, of closed-circuit 12